My other baby

…had its birth announcement today:

Glad to finally share more information about our design!

Drive your Google to the Google

This comment has stuck in my head for years…and seems to become truer each day:

> With Google branching into so many fields, one day you’ll [drive your Google](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_driverless_car) to [the Google](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17VHr6rsPAw) to buy some Google to eat while you [watch Google](http://www.youtube.com) on [your Google](http://www.google.com/tv/). – [TheGatekeeper on Slashdot, 2004](http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=126072&cid=10555532)

Guess we’ve got to get cracking on that edible Google.

Not complicated, just hard

Russell Davies collected several good examples of [how creative work is often not complicated, just hard](http://russelldavies.typepad.com/planning/2013/01/its-not-complicated-its-just-hard.html).

More evidence [piles up](http://bob.ryskamp.org/brain/?p=5060)…

The genius copout

> If they were just like us, then they had to work very hard to do what they did. And that’s one reason we like to believe in genius. It gives us an excuse for being lazy. If these guys were able to do what they did only because of some magic Shakespeareness or Einsteinness, then it’s not our fault if we can’t do something as good.

> I’m not saying there’s no such thing as genius. But if you’re trying to choose between two theories and one gives you an excuse for being lazy, the other one is probably right. – [Paul Graham](http://www.paulgraham.com/hs.html)

To which I’d add that if you think you’re a genius, you’re probably just being lazy and [too impatient](http://bob.ryskamp.org/brain/?p=5060) to do things the right way.

Here’s a good alternative:

(How to change cars forever – Dodge Dart)

Got them both!

> “To achieve great things, two things are needed; a plan and not quite enough time.” – Leonard Bernstein

Extremely simple and incredibly difficult

Great design is both extremely simple and incredibly difficult to achieve.

Simple, because it requires only a very few activities–observing people and expressing ideas–and those are not very complicated to perform. There are certainly tricks of the trade, and more or less efficient ways of doing these things, but the core actions are not complex.

Difficult, because the energy and dedication required to do these activities broadly, deeply, and thoroughly enough to find the *right* design solutions is hard to achieve. Most people [don’t have the patience](http://kennethto.tumblr.com/post/9359336429/when-you-first-start-off-trying-to-solve-a) to get there; instead, they settle too early to avoid the discomfort of [not “knowing”](http://bob.ryskamp.org/brain/?p=4619).

I still believe the most important thing I do as a designer is [tolerate ambiguity](http://bob.ryskamp.org/brain/?p=4079). And it’s still the hardest part of my job.

What kind of designer do I need?

I wrote up the following questions to help a friend at work think about his design needs:

* Do you know the core user you’re designing for, and the top 2 or 3 ways your product will improve their lives? Do you think that combination will make a successful product? Could you [design the launch advertisement](http://www.designstaff.org/articles/opinionated-product-design-marketing-first-2012-03-16.html) today? Does everyone on the team agree on these things?
* If not, you need a *product* designer. Lots of explorations around a variety of opportunities & a process to decide on them. At the end you’ll have decisions on your target user, key benefits, and “unique selling points”.
* Do you know how those features will work: how they will be accessed and controlled, in what order, how they fit together, and how someone interacts with it?
* If not, you need an *interaction* designer, someone who can design a system that works elegantly and flexibly. You’ll get things like wireframes, interactive prototypes, flow diagrams, and page layouts.
* Do you know exactly how the product should look, all the way down to fonts, colors, and animations? Do you have pixel specifications for all these things?
* If not, you need a *visual* (or *industrial*) designer, possibly with motion graphics or video experience. You’ll get pixel-perfect specifications and design assets that are ready for production.
* And if you don’t have any of these things, you’ll need all of these people. They build on each other, but I’d start at the beginning with the product designer, who will understand the rest of the process. It’s very rare that one person will do all these things at a high level, however.

See also: [What I talk about when I talk about design](http://bob.ryskamp.org/brain/?p=4367)

What humans will do

> But six [human skills] will survive, say Messrs Brynjolfsson and McAfee, no matter how fast and smart computers become. Those skills are: statistical insight; managing group dynamics; good writing; framing and solving open-ended problems; persuasion; and human nurturing.

[Sounds like a challenge](http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a2c70abc-8d4a-11e1-9798-00144feab49a.html#axzz1tuW6HMJB).

Just do it

“The shortest answer is doing.” – [Lord Herbert](http://zenhabits.net/the-little-rules-of-action/)

Consuming and transforming

“Consumer” is one of those words I’ve never been comfortable with. Along with “user”, it refers to real people as simply receptacles for whatever companies churn out for them. It’s a lazy, impersonal, demeaning, and ultimately unhelpful word.

[Alex Bogusky thinks that as consumption is inevitable, people just need to be *better* consumers](http://fearlessrevolution.com/blog/the-empowered-consumer.html). I agree that’s needed, but still believe our word choice matters and can be improved. [Lots of other people think so too](http://www.google.com/search?q=%22the+word+consumer%22).

The most obvious and simple change is to substitute “people” for these dirty words. That works almost universally, and I use it effectively in my design practice. But today I stumbled upon a use of another word that is more than benign–it’s empowering:

[Transformation](http://www.natlogic.com/resources/publications/new-bottom-line/vol4/12-more-things-change-production-transformation/).

The article itself takes the side of “producers”, acknowledging that nothing is truly produced; it is merely transformed from one (perhaps natural) state to another. Carrying that theme through to the people we design for emphasizes that they too will transform what they receive, putting their stamp on it, doing good or ill with it.

Transformation happens to products, commodities, experiences, and ideas. The word transformation recognizes that people have the opportunity to improve what they receive, but also the responsibility of managing it.

I’m going to try substituting the word “transformer” for “person” in my work–probably just to myself at first–to see if it changes my design decisions.